Wisewon points me to the latest update of the Dartmouth Atlas study, which is, for a health wonk, exciting news. The Dartmouth Atlas project is essentially a map of heath care costs. It shows how much is spent on Medicare patients in different parts of the country, and then pairs that data with evidence of outcomes to see if we're getting our money's worth. The study has been a big deal in health policy circles for two reasons: First is that the variation in spending it uncovered is absolutely tremendous. The second is that it found no relationship between money spent and patient outcomes, even after controlling for condition. Thus, it's just tremendously powerful data showing that our health system is undirected and incoherent. The Wall Street Journal published a helpful map making the point:
More specifically, the UCLA medical center spends $93,000 per patient over the last two years of life. The Mayo Clinic, by contrast, spends $53,000. Patients at UCLA had twice as many doctor visits and spent 50 percent more time in the hospital. But the outcomes were no better. The Mayo Clinic, in fact, is considered to have better care than UCLA. The difference is that they don't overtreat, and rather than being in Los Angeles, which has a high density of health service supply, they're in Minnesota, and aren't affected by a glut of specialists and imaging systems.
More specifically, the UCLA medical center spends $93,000 per patient over the last two years of life. The Mayo Clinic, by contrast, spends $53,000. Patients at UCLA had twice as many doctor visits and spent 50 percent more time in the hospital. But the outcomes were no better. The Mayo Clinic, in fact, is considered to have better care than UCLA. The difference is that they don't overtreat, and rather than being in Los Angeles, which has a high density of health service supply, they're in Minnesota, and aren't affected by a glut of specialists and imaging systems. 
